Jeremy Hall: Iran’s attack just sound and fury

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the "disgraceful blot" of Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused shock and dismay in the West.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke for many when he expressed his "revulsion" at the comments.

Even before Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic phrase had passed into the world's headlines, Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons and reluctance to respond to American threats or European diplomacy were fuelling a growing sense of crisis in the Gulf.

Although Ahmadinejad's stance has surprised many, it is certainly not new. Indeed, Iranian officials were quick to confirm his comments were not an aberration but a re-statement of long-standing policy.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini, regarded as the spiritual father of the Iranian nation, described Israel as a "virus" for which the only solution was "annihilation" and even Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, and viewed as a relative moderate, went on record in 2001 to say that nuclear weapons were desirable because they would provide a means of destroying Israel.

But if there is one thing to remember about modern Iran, it is that the smoke and bombast of its rhetoric is frequently at odds with its actual actions or intentions.

Within Iranian society, verbal attacks on Israel help to shore up the ruling regime's domestic base. They help draw passionate and committed crowds to highly visible public demonstrations which bolster the impression the regime enjoys strong popular support.

It's true that many Iranians have a profound and genuine sympathy for the Palestinian plight but the geographic distance of Iran from the occupied territories makes the issue an abstract one for most.

Iran also hopes that its anti-Israeli tirades will earn it kudos in the broader Muslim world, where such sentiments are often suppressed by governments supported by the United States.

Alas, despite widespread disaffection in the Middle East, Iran's efforts in this area have been almost entirely unsuccessful. During the Iran-Iraq war, most Arab Muslims rallied to the side of Saddam Hussein rather than the Mullahs of Tehran.

The conflict came to be seen as an Arab-Persian fight rather than a Muslim-Secular one. Iran's distinctive Persian culture continues to hobble many of its efforts to reach out to surrounding Arab states.

There is also the question of military capability: as much as it might call for the destruction of Israel, Iran does not have the military means to carry out its threat.

Even if it is making progress on building nuclear weapons, it will be at least three years before it has any sort of usable device, and even longer before it can be weaponised in a way which allows Israel to be directly attacked.

By contrast, Israel could destroy all of Iran's major cities today if it chose. It has an undeclared nuclear arsenal thought to contain hundreds of warheads, along with the planes and missiles necessary to deliver them to their targets. Although Iran's Shahab-3 missile has the range to hit Israel, it is probably only armed with a conventional warhead.

Iran is capable of inflicting fear and disruption on Israel, just as Saddam Hussein did during the first Gulf War with his Scud attacks, but it is far from capable of erasing Israel from the map.

If Ahmadinejad's outburst reveals anything it is not the imminence of an Iranian attack on Israel but his own inexperience on the world stage.

The former mayor of Tehran and member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard pulled off his surprise election win earlier in the year by appealing to Iran's poor; primarily in the rural sector.

He campaigned on a platform of economic reform and social conservatism without much emphasis on foreign policy beyond the anti-Western slogans which are a staple for many conservative candidates.

A more seasoned leader would have been aware his remarks would serve little purpose beyond providing ammunition to hawkish elements in the West.

Having concurred that Ahmadinejad's comments were "unacceptable", Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added: "Those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council have received an additional argument for doing so." Ahmadinejad may not have known his comments would create such a furore, or he may not have cared, but either way the standoff over Iran's nuclear weapons is now in dangerous new territory.

The international community certainly cannot tolerate threats by one member state to destroy another, no matter how deep the sense of grievance is.

But before Western leaders prepare for battle, they would do well to remember that the words which pass the lips of Iran's leaders are often just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The observation that the academic R. K. Ramazani made at the height of the Iran-Iraq war in 1986 holds true today: "The Revolutionary Regime's bark has been worse than its bite, its rhetoric more strident than its actions, its declared policies more belligerent than its intentions."

* Jeremy Hall is a freelance writer. He completed an MA thesis at the University of Otago on Iran's unconventional weapons programmes.